HCS 549 Evaluation Methodology

Evaluation is a process that is used to look at the project, policy or program critically. It includes the collection and analyzing information that is related to the program or policy and that of its outcome. The Main purpose is to improve the policy or the program effectiveness. This will also help to identify any of the weak areas and changes that need to be made in the policy.

In addition, I also plan to get the opinions my colleagues regarding the positives and negatives of the program with a survey at the end of my research. I hope to use the results of this survey to look at and determine the skills and resources that are thought to be essential to the success of the programs implementation.

Program planning is a process to achieve a particular goal and/or mission. Program planning is an organized process through which a set of coordinated activities or interventions is developed to address and facilitate change in some or all of the identified problems. Program evaluation provides useful information for improving the programs and the service delivery systems. Program evaluation is to improve the program planning, effectiveness, design, and efficiency. The two are different processes, but ideally they hold the same goals and/or mission. The evaluation process takes place after the planning of a

Program planning sets the stage for realistic program goals and organizes a plan of action.   Program evaluation provides the program staff with the opportunity to make adjustments and improvements to the program.   Program evaluation provides the important input necessary for ongoing progress and planning.

First, would look at my measurement method to make sure that it is reliable and valid. Making sure that the measurements are representing the people and the program accurately, enough sample size is use to represent the program, and make sure there is no participants contamination. Second, the time from when the program started and when the evaluation process starts can also show that the program have no impact. It takes a long time for programs to work out the kink and bumps along the way and sometimes having an evaluation conducted within a year will not show the program at its full potential. There is also the sleeper effect where the program will not show impact until a much later time. Having an open and clear communication with the stakeholders will let me know what they are looking in the program evaluation so that I can focus on those aspects to make sure I use accurate

The Morningside center is an afterschool program designed for at-risk youth. The Department of Human Services is requiring an evaluation component for all future contracts. Marian is in search of an evaluation program to show that Morningside center is achieving the right goals for the adolescents that attend the program. As a staff member, I suggested in the meeting that the best evaluation program to use would be the target-problem scaling. As I mentioned above, the target-problem scaling is a method of evaluating changes that take place over time. (Kirst-Ashman & Hull, 2015) It is also a process where the problem is identified, a plan takes place, and changes in the target problem are measured. (Kirst-Ashman & Hull, 2015) First off, I think this method would work best because the Department of Human Services is requiring a evaluation, which means a evaluation of the program has to take place to see if there is a problem. The second reason why I would use this method, I think this method would work best because in this method it evaluates change over time. The method will be able to determine if this program at Morningside has helped and made improvements in the adolescent’s lives. The third reason why I think this method is best because, it uses a target-problem change scale. This scale is implemented to view

To help program directors meet these challenges, the Administration on Children, Youth and Families developed a series of evaluations that explain program evaluation-where the teacher evaluates each child that enters into the Head Start. Good program evaluations help to improve program operations, measure program performance and effects and document important lessons for other programs. With this information, program managers are better able to direct limited resources to where they are most needed and most effective.

In order to implement a program evaluation to determine client gains, there will be a team consisting of myself as the lead consultant, 3-4 program evaluation support staff members who will assist in the evaluation process and one staff member from the center being included to provide relevant center information. Key staff from the center will be asked to form an advisory group where all evaluation measures, outcomes and processes will be discussed, approved and presented.

Formal program evaluation began in the nineteen sixty’s. There were many different methods used before the final decision. The Charity Model was used and decisions were based on sincerity and enthusiasm of participants in the program. If the participants were excited the program would be considered a success and the funding would continue. The Pork Barrel method was also used which relied on power and leverage of constituency. With

Evaluation of the program should be ongoing, in the best effort to target issues within the program as efficiently as possible. Evaluation should be built into the program, making it effortless for those involved to provide the necessary information to create useful evaluations. Additionally, any evaluation should be cost effective, so as to not hinder the program as a whole. Any evaluations must also be done ethically and conducted competently. It is also important to disseminate the results of evaluations to interested and appropriate audiences.

In determining the type of evaluation used in this research, I supposed that the evaluation cannot be formative, because there is no recommendation based on the findings (Posovac, 2011). Then, I hesitated between the summative evaluation and the monitoring one. Firstly, the evaluation could be summative because of the comparison between the old and the new programs, there is no indication in the article stating that the evaluation’s findings will be used to decide amongst the two programs, and the findings could be used for accountability purposes (Posovac, 2011). Secondly, because the new program is a refined program stemming from the quality improvement of the old one, this could be a monitoring evaluation, since the authors only gathered the feedback to confirm that the program was still effective (Posovac, 2011).

Yuen/Terao (2003) states, “Program planning is an organized process through which a set of coordinated activities or interventions is developed to address and facilitate change in some or all of the identified problems.” “Program Evaluation is the application of different social research designs in assessing the needs and results of programs.” In short, Program Planning and Program Evaluation is the process of assessing needs, organizing an

Program assessment methodically reviews obtainable evidence on the effectiveness of public programs. The budget expansion incorporates proof of program effectiveness into budget and policy determinations, giving subsidy preference to those that produce a high return on investment of public funds. Implementation oversight provides safeguards allowing programs to be effectively delivered. Outcome monitoring regularly measures and report result data to govern whether programs are attaining desired goals. Targeted

Another model of evaluation based on the personal observations makes the use of intensive personal observations and conversations with the stakeholders would be the proponents of “qualitative or naturalistic” argues that only a deep and thorough understanding of a program will permit the most helpful with the evaluation. Offering the “expert opinion model” where the evaluator must be the data-gathering instrument; yet, a greater emphasis is placed on the understanding the experiences to such issues.

Patton supported his claim with adequate evidence throughout the reading. The author strongly suggests that evaluation should never be done independently, but primary intended users should be allowed to “sit at the table” to help make decisions that would influence the intended use. One example was the “welfare-to-work program exercise where internal evaluators met to discuss the finding of their evaluation. It is clear that no primary intended users were identified and little thoughts if any were given to how the evaluation results would be used. For Patton, the number one priority to good evaluation starts with primary intended users who input can help guide the evaluation from the start to the finish. In contrast, Brandon W. Youker, author of “Goal-Free Evaluation: A potential Model for the Evaluation of Social Work Programs” believed in a goal-free evaluation, whereby evaluators should make observations, and measure any outcomes intended or unintended without any knowledge, goals or even